From: Dan Honemann <danh@selectsa.com>
> > >Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about
halfway
> > >down the page at this site:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
> > don't see the "astonishing" difference you're talking about,
> > even when these two images are inspected under high magnification
> > in Photoshop.
>
> Really? Maybe it's my monitor (a 14" thoroughly uncalibrated
notebook LCD).
> I don't know what accounts for the difference--maybe the one poster
is right
> in saying it is contrast--but it is most apparent to me in the
girl's face.
> The Leafscan image looks clear and _glossy_, while the Nikon image
looks
> _flat_. To put it differently, the Nikon image looks like a scan,
while the
> Leafscan image looks like a photograph (to my eyes).
>
> I don't have the vocabulary or the trained eye to articulate what
the
> difference is or what causes it--but I sure can see it. That's why
I was
> hoping someone here could tell me what it is, and if it could be
addressed
> in Photo Shop so that the Nikon scan would end up looking as good as
the
> Leafscan image after some tweaking. I ask because I'm leaning
toward buying
> the 4000 now, so I'm hoping there's some way to get it to look as
good as
> the Leafscan--cuz that's the sort of scan I'm aiming for (yep, I
could
> always just get a Leafscan 45, but I don't know what I'm doing and
figure a
> 4000 with ICE has a shorter learning curve--and scanning time per
image).
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
Dan, don't worry, the difference you see has nothing to do with what
either scanner can do in some ultimate sense. It's merely a contrast
difference, and either scanner could make a scan that looks like the
other in the terms of the differences you're seeing. The Leafscan 45
is a very good scanner, but the Nikon will be so much easier to use,
and according to ex-Leaf owners, it makes higher quality scans too.
Dave
